[Foundation-l] UMP Convention

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 23:31:06 UTC 2006

On 06/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> > categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> > like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> > basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine).

> So is everyone else. The results so far have been indiferent. A lot of
> people out there are looking for an effective way of searching images.
> Whoever finds it is going to be able to cash in big time.

Yes, well, there is that! However Getty does it is good enough for
people to pay real money for, fwiw.

> >You
> > describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> > and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> > something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> > search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> > Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa."

> If you want that you are going to have to remove GFDL as one of the
> standard image upload options.

I'd like it myself, but then I tend to make my photos PD or
copyleft-self (GFDL+cc-by-sa-any). People who would quite like to see
"(c) Me Memememe Meeee - reusable under cc-by-sa" will licence their
work accordingly.

(Personally I consider the GFDL a pretend-open licence for print use
of images; it's technically free content, but the compliance
requirements are onerous.)

> >You would, with a moment's
> > thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> > that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.

> They are one user certianly

My point is that I think it would be worth it so people see more open
content out in the world.

- d.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list